Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:20:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf] Message-ID: <199906211820.LAA92388@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR misc/11796; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org>
To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
Cc: Doug <Studded@gorean.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>,
freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, alex@wnm.net
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:02:14 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > The service-name entry is the name of a valid service in the file
> > /etc/services. For ``internal'' services (discussed below), the
> > service name must be the official name of the service (that is, the first
> > entry in /etc/services).
>
> Read the services(5) manpage. There's nothing wrong with using a
> service's alias.
Can you point out exactly what part of the man page that you are
referring to that contradicts what the inetd man page says? Have you
checked the actual code for inetd to verify that it will work with
services aliases?
In my experience, and in the experience of the PR poster it *is*
necessary to use the canonical name of the service, however if you can
check the code, test it thoroughly and determine that inetd works
perfectly well with aliases, then feel free to change the man page for
inetd.
Thanks,
Doug
--
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only
nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter
what it does.
-- Will Rogers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906211820.LAA92388>